The ruling was that there was no legal grounds for a challenge to Walker's ruling. They very deliberately avoided any ruling on whether it had been legally sound in the first place. Hint: it probably wasn't.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):Except that that's wrong... The ruling was specifically designed as a cop-out so they didn't have to rule on whether the decision was legally sound.

I'm not talking about the SCOTUS decision. Im talking about the appeals court that upheld walker previously.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.

Again, no ****.

I'm not arguing that the appellate courts ruling is still in effect. My point is that we really only have one benchmark to consider when trying to guess whether or not his ruling was biased--the apellate court's review. The appellate court did not overturn his decision. Sure, their ruling is gone now due to a procedural ruling from SCOTUS, but that really doesn't matter when we're considering whether or not Walker's decision was biased.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.

And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.

And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether anything is Constitutional.

I'm pointing out what SCOTUS has said about Constitutionality of SSM. It's their opinion.